Fellow current and previous Obama voters and liberal leaners, We've got to face facts, Obama talks from one side and acts from another.

The Constitutional previous Professor signed into law a Military act containing Indefinate Detention for those the State deems Terrorist or Terrorist Leaning/Sympathetic. Does this action sound like the same person who railed against Bush for his policies on "Terrorist Combatants' and holding them indefinately without rights to their day in court (Habeas Corpus rights) as the constitution grants all citizens and enemies alike.

CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING:

Published on Friday, March 30, 2012 by Common Dreams

Journalists, Activists Challenge NDAA Law

Chris Hedges, Noam Chomsky, among the plantiffs involved in the case

- Common Dreams staff

A group of prominent activists and journalists presented a legal challenge to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) yesterday, claiming to a New York City federal judge that the law inhibits their First Amendment Rights.

Chris Hedges, Noam Chomsky and Daniel Ellsberg are among the seven plaintiffs on the case. They argued the law, which includes controversial provisions authorizing the military to jail anyone it considers a terrorism suspect anywhere in the world, without charge or trial. Critics say the the law is written in a way that it could put journalists who report on terror-related issues at risk for detention for supporting enemy forces.

* * *

The Guardian: US anti-terrorism law curbs free speech and activist work, court told

A group political activists and journalists has launched a legal challenge to stop an American law they say allows the US military to arrest civilians anywhere in the world and detain them without trial as accused supporters of terrorism.

The seven figures, who include ex-New York Times reporter Chris Hedges, professor Noam Chomsky and Icelandic politician and WikiLeaks campaigner Birgitta Jonsdottir, testified to a Manhattan judge that the law – dubbed the NDAA or Homeland Battlefield Bill – would cripple free speech around the world.

They said that various provisions written into the National Defense Authorization Bill, which was signed by President Barack Obama at the end of 2011, effectively broadened the definition of "supporter of terrorism" to include peaceful activists, authors, academics and even journalists interviewing members of radical groups.

Controversy centres on the loose definition of key words in the bill, in particular who might be "associated forces" of the law's named terrorist groups al-Qaida and the Taliban and what "substantial support" to those groups might get defined as. Whereas White House officials have denied the wording extends any sort of blanket coverage to civilians, rather than active enemy combatants, or actions involved in free speech, some civil rights experts have said the lack of precise definition leaves it open to massive potential abuse.

Hedges, who is a Pulitzer Prize-winner and longtime writer on the Middle East, told New York judge Katherine Forrest on Thursday that he feared he might be subject to arrest under the terms of NDAA if interviewing or meeting Islamic radicals could constitute giving them "substantial support" under the terms of the law.

"I could be detained by the US military, held in a military facility – including offshore – denied due process and incarcerated until 'the end of hostilities' whenever that is," Hedges said. He added that the law was already impacting his ability to work as he feared speaking to or meeting with sources who the US government could see as terrorists or advocates of violence.

* * *

The International Business Times: NDAA Lawsuit Seeks Preliminary Injunction Against ‘Unprecedented Threat To Civil Liberties’

Noam Chomsky, Daniel Ellsberg and Icelandic parliament member Birgitta Jonsdottir are among the seven witnesses expected to testify in a New York federal court on Thursday in support of a class action lawsuit against the United States government over controversial provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), a military spending bill they claim threatens American's civil liberties and basic human rights.

U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest will hear arguments for a preliminary injunction against certain sections of the legislation, which was signed into law on Dec. 31. Buried in the otherwise mundane budget and expenditure bill is a provision under Section 1021 of the law that permits the indefinite military detention, without a formal charge or public trial, of anyone suspected of participating in or aiding a terrorist organization "engaged in hostilities against the United States."

Although the bill explicitly states the military detention provision does not apply to U.S. citizens, but only American al-Qaeda members overseas, some critics fear the language could eventually be interpreted to apply to all citizens, something Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colo., said would be an "unprecedented threat to our constitutional liberties."

In December, Udall proposed an amendment to the bill that would have struck down the section authorizing the president to use "all necessary and appropriate force" to detain people suspected of terrorism. The effort was defeated in a 60 to 38 vote.

Author Chris Hedges, a former New York Times war correspondent, filed the lawsuit -- known as Hedges v. Obama -- against what he says are the law's "Homeland Battlefield" provisions , which he believes could allow for the indefinite detention of journalists who report the views of groups the U.S. government considers to be terrorists.

# # #.

The State of Virginia was the first to pass legislation refusing to adhere to this law and there are several others considering such laws.

Where do you stand on this anything but Constitutional Act that our supposed Liberal president signed into law ?.

In his second term, President Obama will develop a spine bone and KICK AZZZZZZZZ.

I admire your optimism, but I'm not holding my breath.Didn't they say Clinton would stop his "backtracking" and constant "caving in" to the Republicans (ie. healthcare, gays in the military) after he defeated Dole?

mch saidDo you honestly believe that any of the "terrible Trio" of undesireable replacments that the GOP/TEAbaggers are trying to foist off on America would be any of an improvement

But....THIS time around, I believe that President Obama is a better choice that any of the the GOP loosers.

I agree with you. For many Americans their only option is going to be to hold their nose and vote for Obama.But aren't you a little fed up by now with the politics of tweedle dee and tweedle dum? Or in this case - tweedle dum and tweedle dumber?

I think we should be able to expect more and when Americans get fed up enough or uncomfortable enough with the status quo we'll make demands to end the 'bought and paid for' politicians that come from our current system which is totally run by lobbies, special interests and corps who pay for the legislation that benefits them usually at the demise of the American public. All done as our politicians blindside the public with smooth words.

Hell yes I'll vote for Obama before Romney, Santorum or Gingrich. Ron Paul however has some very good takes on the issues, but the bought and paid for lobby run Media is working right along with the dims and repugs to stifle real change from the Status Quo.

When I was in the USA all of last September, I got to spend much time with many Americans away from RJ, got a better balance. I was to find many Americas even those who voted for Obama were disappointed, in his lack of performance, and just did not trust him, and would not vote for him again, and wanted to see him gone.

For people to say what politision does not lie is not only addressing the issue, but one sided, as you would not show the same tolerance to GW Bush, ot other conservatives.

Webster666 saidThe President has to walk a fine line in order to alienate as few voters as possible.

The problem is, all the warfare and destruction of civil liberties didn't alienate Obama any voters at all. Same for corporate bailouts etc. Surely in his second term he will be even more careless, right?

Webster666 saidThe President has to walk a fine line in order to alienate as few voters as possible.

The problem is, all the warfare and destruction of civil liberties didn't alienate Obama any voters at all. Same for corporate bailouts etc. Surely in his second term he will be even more careless, right?

Ron Paul's non interventionist policies are exactly what is needed to 'right our ship of state', that alone will win the war on terrorism, because the US reactionary efforts, intervention in other national affairs, always taking Israels side no matter how glaringly wrong are exactly why we have blowback terrorism.

When our leaders stop the attrocities in our names and protestors stop seeing 'made in the USA' on bomb remnants and tear gas canisters that kill innocents then and only then will we stop making enemies.

Webster666 saidThe President has to walk a fine line in order to alienate as few voters as possible.

The problem is, all the warfare and destruction of civil liberties didn't alienate Obama any voters at all. Same for corporate bailouts etc. Surely in his second term he will be even more careless, right?

Ron Paul's non interventionist policies are exactly what is needed to 'right our ship of state', that alone will win the war on terrorism, because the US reactionary efforts, intervention in other national affairs, always taking Israels side no matter how glaringly wrong are exactly why we have blowback terrorism.

When our leaders stop the attrocities in our names and protestors stop seeing 'made in the USA' on bomb remnants and tear gas canisters that kill innocents then and only then will we stop making enemies.

In spite of his homophobic past; Ron Paul is the only current GOP hopeful that I would even consider voting for.